Perrin v. Succession of Perrin
861 So. 2d 582, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1940, 2002 La.App. 1 Cir. 1875 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a claim of ownership in immovable property titled in another's name cannot be proven by parol evidence and requires an allegation of a written agreement. However, parol evidence is admissible to prove that a written act of sale is a simulation where the true intent of the parties differs from what is expressed in the contract.
Facts:
- On May 17, 1997, Debra Tonzi Perrin purchased property at 2627 Lakeshore Drive.
- On February 20, 1998, Perrin's father-in-law, Vincent Perrin Jr., purchased adjacent undeveloped property at 2629 Lakeshore Drive.
- Perrin alleged that Vincent Perrin Jr. purchased the 2629 property on behalf of her and her husband, and that they provided the funds for the down payment and mortgage.
- After separating from her husband, Perrin decided to sell a portion of her property at 2627 Lakeshore Drive.
- By a deed of cash sale on October 1, 1999, Perrin conveyed this portion of land to Vincent Perrin Jr. for a stated consideration of $3,500.
- Perrin alleged she was never paid the $3,500 and that the true agreement was for Vincent Perrin Jr. to combine and sell both properties, pay encumbrances, and split the remaining proceeds with her.
- Shortly after the sale, Vincent Perrin Jr. died.
- Both the 2629 property and the property from the cash sale were listed as assets in Vincent Perrin Jr.'s succession.
Procedural Posture:
- Debra Tonzi Perrin filed a petition in trial court against the Succession of Vincent R. Perrin Jr. for damages and return of immovable property.
- The defendant filed an exception of no cause of action, which the trial court sustained, ordering the plaintiff to amend her petition to name the decedent's heirs as defendants.
- Perrin filed an amended petition.
- The defendants again filed an exception of no cause of action, which the trial court denied, but sustained other exceptions and ordered Perrin to amend her petition a second time.
- Perrin filed a second amended petition.
- The defendants re-urged their exception of no cause of action, arguing Perrin failed to allege a written agreement.
- The trial court sustained the exception of no cause of action and dismissed Perrin's suit.
- Perrin's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court, after which she, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a plaintiff state a valid cause of action for an ownership interest in two separate parcels of immovable property when, for the first parcel, she alleges an unwritten agreement that it was purchased on her behalf, and for the second, she alleges a written cash sale was a relative simulation for which the stated consideration was never paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Guidry, J.
No, as to the first property, but Yes, as to the second. The plaintiff fails to state a cause of action regarding the 2629 Lakeshore property because Louisiana law does not permit parol evidence to prove ownership is held by someone other than the person named in the act of sale; a plaintiff must allege the existence of written evidence. However, the plaintiff does state a cause of action regarding the property conveyed in the October 1, 1999 cash sale because she alleges a relative simulation. Louisiana Civil Code article 1848 expressly permits testimonial and other evidence to prove a simulation, meaning her allegations that the true consideration was an oral promise, not the stated $3,500, are sufficient to proceed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinct evidentiary rules for different types of claims involving immovable property in Louisiana. It reaffirms the stringent requirement for written proof when attempting to establish ownership contrary to a recorded title, thereby upholding the integrity of public records. Conversely, it preserves the critical exception allowing parol evidence to expose simulated contracts, ensuring that parties cannot use the formalities of a written sale to shield fraudulent conduct or conceal the true nature of their agreement. This dual holding provides a clear pleading framework: claims of beneficial ownership require written proof, while claims of sham transactions can proceed on allegations of oral agreements.
